Lanvin F/W 2017.18 Paris

[TaylorBinque]

It's pretty. But it's also bland. There's almost no excitement in it which is very different when you see her couture collections. And those mini bag scream Valentino's styling. I went to the store and they decided to get ride of blue tags and those special 'season' tags which make Lanvin unique. Those kind of details make a house special and now all the stuff look very department-store.

 

[jeanclaude]

I can´t understand why her work was more interesting under her own label, than now working for Lanvin. It makes me wonder if the real talent was from someone who was part of her former team....and who is not with her now at Lanvin...

 

[Sweet rus]

After reading the comments, I feel a bit weird cause I totally love what I see: it is feminine, sophisticated and chic, not as dramatic and impactful as Elbaz's Lanvin but still good, and this is coming from a hard-core Elbaz fan who is very skeptical about what the house of Lanvin has to offer, but I do honestly like the looks that I see

 

[liberty33r1b]

some things are outstanding, but most is just boring

 

[dior_couture1245]

If gender doesn't matter, why are most heads of houses men? I guess men just happen to be better designers/better fits for jobs than woman 99 percent of the time. Funny how that happens

Ugh. No.

Lest we forget that two of the most universally revered designers of our generation are women - Prada and Rei. Additionally...you've got designers like Diane von Furtstenburg, Vera Wang and Tory Burch who all have multi-billion dollar fashion and lifestyle companies in their name. But yeah....it's a completely systematic sexist industry that does everything it can to keep women out of designer positions. Yeah, right.

Furthermore, outside of head designer and creative director positions, this industry is hugely run by women. Publishing, for example? Hello? Aside from the new MALE Vogue Italia editor succeeding Franca, haven't all international Vogues' been edited exclusively by females for decades upon decades? And that's just Vogue...nevermind Elle, Harper's, Numero, etc. etc.

From my own experience working in this industry at companies both large and small, women have been running high powered positions of merchandizing, sales, buying, styling, internal designing, presidents of departments, etc. etc.

So - you have to ask yourself this question, as controversial as it may be - since I have not experienced or seen in any instance in the intimacy of my career in fashion or in the fashion industry writ large any agenda to exclude women from top designer positions - maybe there are less women fighting for those top positions than there are, say, gay males? Heaven forbid! And heaven forbid I even pose that question, right?! Maybe, just maybe, it's not that women are being turned away in mass, but maybe less women are fighting for those positions than you'd like to imagine?

I'm tired of this narrative. I'm tired of identity politics. Ultimately I do not have a care in the world what gender, race, sexuality or background someone comes from. All I care about is whether or not the work that someone produces is compelling, genuine, hard earned and whether or not they are able to tap into that rare, elusive and magical sweet spot of some kind of collective consciousness that excites us as viewers and consumers.

So - in this instance, Bouchra hasn't created anything particularly interesting for Lanvin. Two seasons in is a short amount of time, but first impressions are important and her's has been a pretty limp, lackluster whisper of a tenure so far. Her being a woman is moot for me.

 

[gossiping]

agree with most of the comments said so far

there's no colour, nothing special at all...forgettable

 

[MulletProof]

Ugh. No.

Lest we forget that two of the most universally revered designers of our generation are women - Prada and Rei. Additionally...you've got designers like Diane von Furtstenburg, Vera Wang and Tory Burch who all have multi-billion dollar fashion and lifestyle companies in their name. But yeah....it's a completely systematic sexist industry that does everything it can to keep women out of designer positions. Yeah, right.

Furthermore, outside of head designer and creative director positions, this industry is hugely run by women. Publishing, for example? Hello? Aside from the new MALE Vogue Italia editor succeeding Franca, haven't all international Vogues' been edited exclusively by females for decades upon decades? And that's just Vogue...nevermind Elle, Harper's, Numero, etc. etc.

From my own experience working in this industry at companies both large and small, women have been running high powered positions of merchandizing, sales, buying, styling, internal designing, presidents of departments, etc. etc.

So - you have to ask yourself this question, as controversial as it may be - since I have not experienced or seen in any instance in the intimacy of my career in fashion or in the fashion industry writ large any agenda to exclude women from top designer positions - maybe there are less women fighting for those top positions than there are, say, gay males? Heaven forbid! And heaven forbid I even pose that question, right?! Maybe, just maybe, it's not that women are being turned away in mass, but maybe less women are fighting for those positions than you'd like to imagine?

I'm tired of this narrative. I'm tired of identity politics. Ultimately I do not have a care in the world what gender, race, sexuality or background someone comes from. All I care about is whether or not the work that someone produces is compelling, genuine, hard earned and whether or not they are able to tap into that rare, elusive and magical sweet spot of some kind of collective consciousness that excites us as viewers and consumers.

So - in this instance, Bouchra hasn't created anything particularly interesting for Lanvin. Two seasons in is a short amount of time, but first impressions are important and her's has been a pretty limp, lackluster whisper of a tenure so far. Her being a woman is moot for me.

It's one thing to be 'revered' and operate (oh wait, no, that's their partners do) an "empire" that extends all over the oh so vast territory of fashion, something else is to be in command of a house that is directly influential in popular culture, beauty parameters and the role and image of women. Just a tiny difference. You can base your conclusions observing Tory Burch and Diane Von Furstenberg, but back in the Paris, of the 5 main houses that call the shots to whatever Tory will sell 9 years later, 4 of them were started by men, 5 of them were headed by men until last year. In the current schedule, 60 designers are men, 30 are woman, most openers or filler acts.

Nobody is saying that when women enter fashion, they're likely to be broke, abused and oppressed. That's such a pedantic, square and convenient interpretation of an argument. There is a lack of balance, this lack of balance prevails in all fields, especially the ones that NEED women, such as engineering. What is ironic in the case of fashion but somehow adds insult to injury is that this is something as rudimentary and superficial as attire, how we present ourselves, how we understand ourselves too, what we teach women. And it is overwhelmingly and quite strictly I would say, dictated by men. It is the one field where it's crystal clear.

There's no chicken and egg dilemma when it comes to magazines and designers, no designers = no magazines, they're the heart of the industry.. I'm sure that if you add to your numbers the presence of sales assistants (and I think you actually did that?), fashion does comply with your idea of one wonderful matriarchal oasis.

Unless you are a researcher, I don't think personal experience with the limits it carries, lack of experience in other fields for the sake of perspective, the one country this is based on and of course the occasional observations and recognition that you have first hand, as a man, not "experienced or seen" discrimination for top designer positions is sufficient to conclude there is no gender discrimination in fashion (but maybe you're in the Kering or LVMH's board of directors.. if that's the case, my bad...). The same accumulation of "everyday knowledge" is too vague to sustain your "daring" question (let alone answering it) but is a predictable route of ordinary logic devoid of empirical research too.. which is actually very typical when human beings have experienced privilege of some sort and empathy has eroded or was never there in the first place: maybe people are poor and remain poor because they're not smart enough to overcome difficulties; In a group of 37 women and 2 men, I (man) got this well-paid position because I always excelled in everything I do and I just really stood out among the rest, maybe they just need to REALLY fight for it like I did.

It's okay to be tired of this narrative, of gender politics.. these arguments in America do tend to continually take pedantic routes and people make villains out of everyone because they don't exercise critical thinking, they don't stop for a second and evaluate or put things into perspective, and there's certainly an attraction for martyrdom. On the other hand, this type of hunger for shock and patrolling and dissecting everything that does not enter what they understand in this ABC way as "political correctness", has also nurtured a more intense response for it, which is even more repulsive. The kind of reaction where political incorrectness is defiant, subversive, fresh, claiming back with all force a right to just "be" and not apologize for it. I don't apologize for my conditioning and I resent anyone that's trying to make me up to be the bad guy for my opportunities and what I'm entitled to live. I would just make sure that on your way to discredit the first group, your don't end up indirectly speaking up for the second... considering the ordeal we're in right now.

Finally, I'd say we need to get rid of this fashion syndrome that makes people roll their eyes and act with annoyance like there's a fly in your margarita every time someone brings anything that, yeah, heaven forbid, gets on your way between you and your right for magical fashion.

 

[Lola701]

I can´t understand why her work was more interesting under her own label, than now working for Lanvin. It makes me wonder if the real talent was from someone who was part of her former team....and who is not with her now at Lanvin...

Maybe her work seemed more interesting under her own brand because she was doing Couture.
It's easier to look fresh and new with clothes that whisper in a couture world than in the RTW world. A part from Chanel, who is known for beautiful, timeless and nonchalant daywear in Couture? She had that niche for her but suddenly, in a very vibrant fashion house, it all feels dull.
What can say about a white shirt worn with a navy pant in RTW? It's really hard to find excitement about it...Even if you say that it required 78 hours of work.

 

[jeanclaude]

Maybe her work seemed more interesting under her own brand because she was doing Couture.
It's easier to look fresh and new with clothes that whisper in a couture world than in the RTW world. A part from Chanel, who is known for beautiful, timeless and nonchalant daywear in Couture? She had that niche for her but suddenly, in a very vibrant fashion house, it all feels dull.
What can say about a white shirt worn with a navy pant in RTW? It's really hard to find excitement about it...Even if you say that it required 78 hours of work.

I said this not because this is PaP and not HC. I said it because in her former collections, under her own label, you can clearly see concepts in the design of the garments. But in Lanvin is sooo basic, like straight from a cut/pattern/sewing manual.

 

[HeatherAnne]

Damn this is bad, and exactly what they deserve for firing Elbaz.

 

[Uemarasan]

I'm curious what those 5 houses are. Chanel, Dior, Givenchy.... YSL? Balenciaga? Only became relevant again after Ghesquiere's tenure. Lanvin?

It's one thing to be 'revered' and operate (oh wait, no, that's their partners do) an "empire" that extends all over the oh so vast territory of fashion, something else is to be in command of a house that is directly influential in popular culture, beauty parameters and the role and image of women. Just a tiny difference. You can base your conclusions observing Tory Burch and Diane Von Furstenberg, but back in the Paris, of the 5 main houses that call the shots to whatever Tory will sell 9 years later, 4 of them were started by men, 5 of them were headed by men until last year. In the current schedule, 60 designers are men, 30 are woman, most openers or filler acts.

Nobody is saying that when women enter fashion, they're likely to be broke, abused and oppressed. That's such a pedantic, square and convenient interpretation of an argument. There is a lack of balance, this lack of balance prevails in all fields, especially the ones that NEED women, such as engineering. What is ironic in the case of fashion but somehow adds insult to injury is that this is something as rudimentary and superficial as attire, how we present ourselves, how we understand ourselves too, what we teach women. And it is overwhelmingly and quite strictly I would say, dictated by men. It is the one field where it's crystal clear.

There's no chicken and egg dilemma when it comes to magazines and designers, no designers = no magazines, they're the heart of the industry.. I'm sure that if you add to your numbers the presence of sales assistants (and I think you actually did that?), fashion does comply with your idea of one wonderful matriarchal oasis.

Unless you are a researcher, I don't think personal experience with the limits it carries, lack of experience in other fields for the sake of perspective, the one country this is based on and of course the occasional observations and recognition that you have first hand, as a man, not "experienced or seen" discrimination for top designer positions is sufficient to conclude there is no gender discrimination in fashion (but maybe you're in the Kering or LVMH's board of directors.. if that's the case, my bad...). The same accumulation of "everyday knowledge" is too vague to sustain your "daring" question (let alone answering it) but is a predictable route of ordinary logic devoid of empirical research too.. which is actually very typical when human beings have experienced privilege of some sort and empathy has eroded or was never there in the first place: maybe people are poor and remain poor because they're not smart enough to overcome difficulties; In a group of 37 women and 2 men, I (man) got this well-paid position because I always excelled in everything I do and I just really stood out among the rest, maybe they just need to REALLY fight for it like I did.

It's okay to be tired of this narrative, of gender politics.. these arguments in America do tend to continually take pedantic routes and people make villains out of everyone because they don't exercise critical thinking, they don't stop for a second and evaluate or put things into perspective, and there's certainly an attraction for martyrdom. On the other hand, this type of hunger for shock and patrolling and dissecting everything that does not enter what they understand in this ABC way as "political correctness", has also nurtured a more intense response for it, which is even more repulsive. The kind of reaction where political incorrectness is defiant, subversive, fresh, claiming back with all force a right to just "be" and not apologize for it. I don't apologize for my conditioning and I resent anyone that's trying to make me up to be the bad guy for my opportunities and what I'm entitled to live. I would just make sure that on your way to discredit the first group, your don't end up indirectly speaking up for the second... considering the ordeal we're in right now.

Finally, I'd say we need to get rid of this fashion syndrome that makes people roll their eyes and act with annoyance like there's a fly in your margarita every time someone brings anything that, yeah, heaven forbid, gets on your way between you and your right for magical fashion.

Bravo! I'll be the first to admit that much political correctness as conceived today is anathema to my beliefs, but it has always disturbed me a great deal that an industry devoted to the very image of women continues to be run by men, gay or not.

I'm willing to give Bouchra some more time. Following Alber was never going to be easy.

 

[GivenchyHomme]

At this point all I have to ask is why bother? It's a carbon copy of her debut collection. It's the same pieces repeated over and over again. A white blouse, black pants, satin dress, striped coat, and white ruffles. All I kept thinking was now we finally know who really designed Balenciaga Spring 2006. The resemblance is uncanny. This is going to get old real quick, so she really needs to step out of her comfort zone. A little color will go a long way Bouchra!

 

[Creative]

Bravo! I'll be the first to admit that much political correctness as conceived today is anathema to my beliefs, but it has always disturbed me a great deal that an industry devoted to the very image of women continues to be run by men, gay or not.
.

So, since it's for women it has to be run by them? You can't be serious. Only male doctors can investigate in prostate diseases then... Makes sense.

 

[Uemarasan]

I'm completely serious. This is about image-making, so several questions follow naturally: whom is this image for, being first and foremost. Another one: who should have the power to determine their own image?

Your counterexample seems like a strawman argument.

 

[Creative]

I'm completely serious. This is about image-making, so several questions follow naturally: whom is this image for, being first and foremost. Another one: who should have the power to determine their own image?

Your counterexample seems like a strawman argument.

It was a strawman argument on purpose to evidence the 'strawmaness' of yours. `

In fashion there are women and men at top positions. And no one is determining anybody's image; they are just proposing things.

 

[IloveDiorHomme]

"Models are the rats of the fashion world: living on cigarettes, squeezing through impossible spaces, leaving the rest of us behind as they bolt for their motorbikes and drivers. I say this in fondness. Today, while stuck in a slow-moving throng exiting a dreary Lanvin show, I watched three models slip between a wall and a statue — a gap of perhaps six inches — and skip down the steps into the soft Paris rain. One was enjoying a smoke by the time I reached the curb.

Such an escape could not have been finessed in the precious clothes we’d just seen. Bouchra Jarrar, in her second season as the creative director of Lanvin, does not seem to know how to make relaxed, modern clothes. She’s good with tailored things, but far too many of the looks in the show, at the ornate Hotel de Ville, involved floaty skirts in ivory or powder-pink georgette, as well as sheer tops with lace and ruffles and sometimes even a black bow at the neck. Many of the clothes looked haute couture, but in the old comme il faut sense, with nothing out of place and a feather-tipped pin jauntily worn on your lapel.

The paradox here is that even though Jeanne Lanvin, like her rivals Coco Chanel and Alix Gres, worked in an era when women were much less free than they are now, their highly embellished, finely crafted clothes expressed an adventurousness that so far eludes Jarrar. In the 1920s and ‘30s, designers — especially female designers — were experimenting with new cutting methods (think of Madeleine Vionnet’s revolutionary bias-cut gowns) to express more liberated attitudes. Today, the watchwords are comfort and extreme individuality, embodied in the designs of a brand as well as the choice and styling of its models. The best examples of this during the New York collections were the Marc Jacobs and Calvin Klein shows — super-wearable clothes combined with diverse, unique models. But Jarrar stuck to a predominantly white cast, and the fit of her garments was generally conventional, however glossy the fabrics. Rigid thinking shows."

http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/03/freedom-fried-in-paris.html

Wow, Horyn didn't enjoy the collection as well...

 

[Uemarasan]

It was a strawman argument on purpose to evidence the 'strawmaness' of yours. `

In fashion there are women and men at top positions. And no one is determining anybody's image; they are just proposing things.

I'm not sure how exactly mine is a strawman argument if I am directly questioning the lack of involvement of women in the highest echelons of an industry that is about creating a certain image of them.

I disagree that it's only about proposing things.

 

[MulletProof]

I'm curious what those 5 houses are. Chanel, Dior, Givenchy.... YSL?

LV and YSL. Meant main/major for the past 10-20 years.

Fashion being some kind of coy proposition is laughable at best. Fortunately though, when tFS debates too much over the presence of long-time trolls (frequent veiled misogynistic commentary, one-word posts, disruptiveness, downgrading each and every thread, not a single contribution that raises the standard), I use the ignore list feature so, I'm missing the context, but I don't think you should honor it with a proper response...

 

[vetements]

The amount of callous criticisms here are sometimes scary lol.

I am guessing I am the only person liking this collection. I just generally like her aesthetics, I also like how she toned down Elbaz flowy, overly feminine looks into something way cleaner fitted for modern day. I also don't see how 'few daywears' are there, especially compared to Elbaz's, so many of her pieces here are totally office/ day friendly, no?

And I also do think she has gotten out of her comfort zone with those silky sanity pink slip like dresses. She didn't do these under her own labels before if I don't remember wrongly.

There are just many strong pieces here, imho. i think sometimes we should give people a chance esp this only being her second outing.

 

[Lola701]

The amount of callous criticisms here are sometimes scary lol.

I am guessing I am the only person liking this collection. I just generally like her aesthetics, I also like how she toned down Elbaz flowy, overly feminine looks into something way cleaner fitted for modern day. I also don't see how 'few daywears' are there, especially compared to Elbaz's, so many of her pieces here are totally office/ day friendly, no?

Alber used to sell a fantasy. That made people buy his clothes. Plus, Alber's clothes had for a longtime something special: their lightness. For a long time he never used padding, his dresses while complex always felt very "done at the last minute". His clothes had something very special.

Yes, over the time, his collections became more flamboyant and more focused on eveningwear but it was because he was already known for his infamous dresses with a gros-grain belt.

While Bouchra's aesthetic is totally likeable, her clothes are not special enough. They are not very distinctive in terms of cut IMO compared to Alber.